John Roberts

Civil rights figures held a requiem for the Voting Rights Act on its 61st anniversary, lamenting legislative setbacks and the neutering of federal protections. The hollowing out of the VRA is attributed to Supreme Court rulings that ended federal preclearance, which limited state governments from changing voting procedures. As a result, critics argue the nation is experiencing a modern-day political Jim Crow.

The article examines Justice Brett Kavanaugh's role as a prominent concurrence writer on the Roberts Court, highlighting his frequent alignment with majorities (92-95% of decisions) and his use of concurrences to respect dissenting arguments, explain court opinions, and outline future legal views. Kavanaugh's approach is contrasted with historical justices like William Brennan and John Harlan, with a specific example from the Trump v. Barbara birthright citizenship case illustrating his balancing of statutory and constitutional interpretations.

The Trump administration did not request the Supreme Court to rehear the case challenging its executive order ending birthright citizenship, as the deadline for filing a petition passed without submission. The Supreme Court previously ruled the order unconstitutional, citing the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, with a 6-3 decision upholding a lower court's ruling against the policy.

The Supreme Court's summer recess between July and September causes a backlog of cert petitions, which are addressed in a late-September conference. The article suggests the court could adopt year-round operations to improve efficiency, referencing historical practices and proposals for unilateral reform.

The article examines how predictable Supreme Court decisions are based on oral arguments, analyzing 56 cases from October 2025 to April 2026. It uses examples like Louisiana v. Callais, Trump v. Barbara, and Chatrie v. United States to show varying degrees of predictability, concluding that while oral arguments provide meaningful insights, they are not fully reliable predictors of outcomes.

Justice Elena Kagan stated the Supreme Court is not a rubber stamp for President Donald Trump, noting the court has checked the executive branch on issues like tariffs and birthright citizenship. While the court has largely supported Trump's policies, Kagan emphasized its independence and criticized perceptions of political bias.

Justice Elena Kagan stated the Supreme Court is not a puppet for President Donald Trump, despite its conservative leanings and numerous rulings in his favor. She highlighted cases where the court rejected Trump's policies, such as tariffs and birthright citizenship restrictions, emphasizing the court's role in checking the executive branch.

Justice Elena Kagan stated the Supreme Court is not a rubber stamp for President Donald Trump, citing rulings that rejected Trump's tariffs and birthright citizenship efforts. The court has generally aligned with Trump's policies but has checked the executive branch on key issues, according to Kagan.

The article analyzes the distinct questioning styles of the nine Supreme Court justices based on data from 58 oral arguments in October Term 2025, which generated 5,095 questions. It highlights Chief Justice John Roberts' focus on 'limiting principles' to assess the long-term implications of legal arguments, exemplified by his questioning in Chatrie v. United States regarding geofence warrants.

A Hawaii Supreme Court justice criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for weakening constitutional rights and advancing a political agenda, arguing Hawaii's Constitution provides stronger protections. Justice Todd Eddins delivered the critique in a ruling overturning a 1990 conviction due to discredited evidence, comparing the Roberts Court's approach to discredited precedents like Dred Scott and Plessy.

A Hawaii Supreme Court justice criticized the U.S. Supreme Court in a legal opinion, arguing that the Roberts Court has weakened constitutional rights and that Hawaii's Constitution should not follow its interpretations. The case involved overturning a conviction due to discredited evidence, with the justice comparing SCOTUS's approach to past decisions like Dred Scott and Plessy.

The Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara, rejecting President Trump’s executive order to narrow it. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch dissented, arguing the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause should focus on domicile and jurisdiction, framing the issue as an ideological debate about who qualifies as 'American.' Thomas criticized the majority’s interpretation as inconsistent with constitutional text and history.

Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan testified before Congress to request increased security funding due to rising threats against justices. Barrett disclosed she wore a bulletproof vest after facing threats, while the court seeks $228 million for next fiscal year, including $14.6 million for expanded personal protection. The U.S. Marshals Service reported 564 threats in the past fiscal year, with incidents like fake swatting calls and bomb threats targeting justices.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett were part of a five-justice majority in two key Supreme Court cases, Trump v. Barbara and Watson v. Republican National Committee, upholding birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment and allowing states to count mailed ballots postmarked by Election Day. Their decisions were praised for judicial integrity, aligning with the law's objective requirements despite dissenting opinions from four other justices.

Justice Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett testified before House and Senate subcommittees about the Supreme Court’s $228 million budget request, which includes security upgrades due to rising threats. The article also discusses the Supreme Court’s increasing adoption of the 'colorblind Constitution' concept and a climate case where Kagan’s impartiality is questioned by conservative groups.

Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett will testify before a House appropriations panel to request increased security funding due to rising threats against the judiciary. The court seeks $228 million for next fiscal year, including $15 million for expanded personal protection for justices and $2 million for an off-site residential security post.

Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett will testify before a House appropriations panel to request increased security funding amid rising threats to the judiciary. The Court seeks $228 million for next fiscal year, including $15 million for expanded personal protection for justices and $2 million for improved emergency response infrastructure.

Justice Samuel Alito has aligned with President Donald Trump's positions in 89% of 100 cases over the past decade, more than any other justice. Justice Clarence Thomas similarly supports Trump but through originalist principles, while Chief Justice John Roberts authored key decisions against Trump, including rulings on tariffs, birthright citizenship, and the firing of a Federal Reserve official.

The Supreme Court, in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, expanded presidential authority to remove federal agency officials, overturning a 1935 precedent. Chief Justice John Roberts cited the 1926 Myers v. United States case, which involved President Woodrow Wilson's controversial removal of a postmaster, as a foundation for the new ruling. Critics argue the Court ignored conflicting historical evidence, particularly suggesting Wilson's wife may have influenced the Myers decision.

Retired judges are touring the U.S. to warn about threats to judicial independence and the rule of law, citing increased polarization and criticism of the courts. They highlight concerns over attacks on judges and the politicization of the judiciary, with some linking these issues to statements by President Donald Trump.

The article examines the complexity of labeling Supreme Court justices as 'ideological,' noting that judicial decisions often defy simple liberal-conservative divisions. It highlights cases like Trump v. Barbara and Chatrie v. United States, where majority coalitions included justices from different perceived ideological blocs, and discusses challenges in measuring ideology through emergency dockets.

President Donald Trump will ask the Supreme Court to rehear the birthright citizenship case, calling the decision 'insane.' The Court's 6-3 ruling upheld citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, and Trump claims it's being exploited for profit. House Speaker Mike Johnson says Republicans are considering legislative action.

President Donald Trump plans to request the Supreme Court rehear a birthright citizenship case after the court upheld the policy, which grants citizenship to children born in the U.S. regardless of parental immigration status. Trump criticized the decision as 'insane' and claimed it enables financial exploitation through border advertisements offering 'birthright citizenship' services. The court's 6-3 ruling affirmed the 14th Amendment's application to all children born on U.S. soil, and Republicans are exploring legislative efforts to address the issue.

The article analyzes Chief Justice John Roberts' evolving role on the Supreme Court, noting his transition from a swing justice before 2020 to a moderate dissenter (2020-2022) and a 'moderator from the front' since 2023. It cites cases like the 2012 Affordable Care Act decision and the 2019 census case to illustrate his shifting approach, balancing conservative principles with institutional stability.

The Supreme Court's recent decisions challenge leftist claims of a conservative agenda aligned with Donald Trump, showing rulings that prioritize constitutional principles over political interests. Democratic leaders criticize the Court for favoring Trump, but the article argues the Court's actions reflect long-term constitutional goals rather than partisan policies.

The Supreme Court concludes its term, with increased ideological division in decisions noted by SCOTUSblog. The article highlights the gradual pace of constitutional law changes and the media's focus on the Court's impact on American citizens.

John Roberts, the US chief justice, has led the Supreme Court in actions that both defied Trump and expanded presidential power. The court's decisions under his leadership reflect a balance between resisting executive overreach and affirming presidential authority in specific contexts.

The Supreme Court declined to halt an $800-a-day fine against former Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge for refusing to reveal her source in a lawsuit involving scientist Yanping Chen. The Court also ruled that President Donald Trump cannot fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook while her challenge to her removal is ongoing, but he may attempt to fire her again under new circumstances.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment in Trump v. Barbara, rejecting arguments that it enables exploitation. The decision emphasized historical intent, while dissenting justices raised concerns about modern implications. The article highlights the economic and societal contributions of immigrant descendants, including their roles in business, government, and the military.

The Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment in Trump v. Barbara, a decision criticized as one of the court's worst. The ruling mandates citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parents' immigration status or intentions, sparking concerns about national security and the definition of American identity.

Chief Justice John Roberts managed an unruly Supreme Court during a tumultuous term, as noted in a recent report.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett faces backlash from conservative lawmakers and pundits after voting to uphold birthright citizenship, which undermines President Trump’s immigration agenda. She joined Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and the court’s liberal justices in striking down Trump’s executive order.

The Supreme Court released two rulings—Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook—simultaneously to avoid uncertainty about the Federal Reserve’s independence, as the cases addressed limits on President Trump’s influence over federal agencies and the central bank. The Court expanded presidential authority over regulatory boards but protected the Fed’s independence, with Chief Justice Roberts emphasizing the need to avoid public doubt about the institution’s stability.

The 2025-26 Supreme Court term showed increased ideological division, with 28.8% of decisions split 6-3 along ideological lines, compared to 15.2% the previous term. The final week included deviations from the usual 6-3 pattern, including Trump v. Barbara, where all three liberal justices joined the majority. Other cases like West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Trump v. Slaughter followed predictable ideological splits.

The Supreme Court released three final opinions for the 2025-26 term, including striking down an executive order on birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara, upholding Title IX policies on sports teams in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, and ruling against campaign spending restrictions in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC. The decisions involved multiple justices with varying concurrences and dissents.

The US Supreme Court rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, upholding the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The 6-3 ruling maintained automatic citizenship for nearly all children born in the US, including those of undocumented parents. Trump criticized the decision and called on Congress to address birthright citizenship.

NPR retracted a false report claiming Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was retiring after a misheard announcement by legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg. Totenberg apologized for the error, and sources confirmed Alito is not retiring this term.

NPR retracted an article mistakenly reporting Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's retirement due to a misunderstanding of Chief Justice John Roberts' statement. The error by reporter Nina Totenberg led to an apology and explanation, with the story being retracted after being posted live briefly.

NPR retracted an article falsely reporting Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's retirement, attributed to a misunderstanding of Chief Justice John Roberts' statement by reporter Nina Totenberg. The error was quickly corrected, with apologies from NPR's leadership and an explanation from its public editor.

Norman Wong, great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, praised the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision upholding birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, rejecting President Donald Trump's executive order restricting citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. The ruling reaffirmed the 1898 precedent established by Wong Kim Ark's case, which secured U.S. citizenship for those born domestically regardless of parental status.